JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. CHOTTE LAL DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Shorn of all details, the essential facts required to be noticed in these appeals are as follows : Acquisition proceedings commenced with the preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 13/5/1960. It was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 3/5/1961. Award was made on 9/1/1964. According to the respondents, the acquisition of 3 bighas and 10 biswas of land from khasra no. 35 had been wrongly included in the Award dated 9/1/1964. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 2935/92 for protecting his rights in respect of 3 bighas and 10 biswas of land comprised in khasra no. 35. The writ petition was resisted mainly on the plea that in the Award made as early as in 1964, 3 bighas and 10 biswas of land in khasra no. 35, had been included. It was also maintained that possession of entire land including 3 bighas and 10 biswas in khasra no. 35 had already been taken and even compensation had been paid to the land owners. A learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition on various grounds vide order dated 15/3/1994.

(3.) The order of learned Single Judge was challenged In appeal before a Division Bench in D. B. Special Appeal No. 245/ 1994. The said special appeal was heard by a Bench comprising Mr. Justice V. K. Singhal and Mr. Justice Arun Madan. The Division Bench dismissed the special appeal against the order of learned Single Judge, vide its order dated 12/5/1994. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) filed a review petition in the High Court against the judgment of the Division Bench in D. B. Special Appeal 254/94. He also filed a special leave petition against the same order dated 12/5/1994 in this Court. The special leave petition was dismissed in limine on 15/9/1995. Review petition against the order of Division Bench dated 12/5/1994 came up before the High Court after dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court. The appellant resisted the review petition on various grounds, including the ground that after dismissal of the special leave petition, review petition against the order dated 12/5/1994 was no longer maintainable.